About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
we do that. i oppose duplicative programs in defense costing the government $3 billion. i've opposed subsidies for agribusiness in the midwest that cost -- a cost this government over $8 billion a year that we don't need. i oppose giving away tax breaks to the oil industry and gas industry to outsource. i have been able to stand up and oppose things we don't need the we need a combination of both additional revenue from those who have done very well by this economy and them some serious -- that is some serious spending cuts. the senator we're seeking to replace, we should elect someone in the senate is going to be willing to compromise. i am. linda mcmahon is not. she is one of these candidates who signed this pledge to grover norquist and a lobbying group in washington. in her debates, she said she agreed with mayor romney that if given a chance to cut spending by $10 and increase revenue by $1 that she would not take it. we don't need to send someone to washington who is going to feed this obstructionism and draw these ridiculously hard lines and the stand -- hard line in the sand.
the department -- it's a part of defense. they are not enforcing with me to be doing. they claimed how great a system they have. the have a grid system on line but for people to physically go in and look for the ballot. that is great if they are internet savvy. by the time it hits people, it is too late, probably by september or october. in the civilian world, we can walk into a department of motor vehicles office or a social services office and we can even walk into recording station -- i've heard they have offered opportunities for people to vote. when you are on active duty in the military, there is no way to go unless they have those of us is set up. i don't mean an officer who has five other things to do. if they do collateral duty, it means they are not graded on performance of that extra duty. they need to allocate about money to get this accomplished which is a blatant dishonest statement. they have $75 million over the past three years allocated to them. $46 million a lot to get this set up in 2011 and they have managed to perfect their internet and voting? internet registration. th
of defense in a coordinated effort, in reconnaissance. but i don't believe that we are going to turn the department of defense into a police organization. we are using our military assets in a prudent way to deal with interdiction, and we've made some success in this area. seventy tons of cocaine have been stopped. but, you know, when you look at the drug problem and it is a tremendous problem, and there are no easy solutions to it it's a complicated problem, and it's heading up the effort to try to create a drug-free america, which is a challenge and a goal of all of us. not only will we utilize national defense and the department of defense, but we've got to get on the demand side of the ledger; we've got to get to education. and education ought to begin at home, and it ought to be reinforced in our schools. and there's another thing that will be more important than the premise of this question on a hypothetical of using troops. we will use the military assets, we will use military assets but we need to focus on another part of this problem, and that problem is law enforcement. and
with defensive weapons to guard against international terror or radical islam perpetuated by khamenei. because we have done that and because the saudi arabians have shot down a couple of the intruding airplanes we have helped keep the peace in the persian gulf. >> representative ferraro, you and mr. mondale have criticized the president on international terror. what would you do to reduce the attached? >> mr. bush has preferred to the embassy that was held in iran. i went to the white house in january in 1981 when all 52 of the hostages came home alive. at that time, president reagan gave a speech welcoming them home. we were so excited to see them back. but he said was, the united states has been embarrassed -- what he said was, the united states has been embarrassed for the last time. next time, there will be swift and immediate steps taken to address the wrong against our country. in april of 1983, i was in beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. two weeks later, the embassy was bombed. take a look at the crazy activities of terrorism -- terrorists. you never know what will happen. t
question. brac, the base realignment and closure process, could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we can provide a good analysis as to what is going on. provide them with the toolsthe jobs are. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. industry in massachusetts. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their pr
. for conservatives, the same is true, only in reverse. they love to attack affirmative action in defense of so-called color blind policies, and often lost in the middle of the polarizing arguments is the ultimate goal, achieving equality for those who have been shut out of opportunities. from its inception by president johnson until the 1978 decision in the regions of the university until the 2003 outlin decision that affirmed affirmative action policies at the university of michigan, the practical implementation of affirmative action has been a patchwork of legal impressions about how best to make amends for the past practices of legal and racial inequality. regrettably, the jubilant surrounding the affirmative action debate has taken over that debate. the real ideals behind affirmative action have been so misconstrued over the years that it helps to look back and to see why it was deemed necessary in the first place. the widely misunderstood -- though not -- widely misunderstood or grossly mischaracterizes as reverse discrimination against white americans, it was originally an acknowledgemen
that defense contractors must send out notices to employees that will be laid off. they are getting nervous. if you are a dividend investor in looking at it going from 15 to 45% in were one with some probability, -- in january, you are worried about being in the market. if we go over the fiscal club, it would be irresponsible in the extreme. the entire issue with the fiscal cliff is to get from here to spring 2013 being goods to words in the economy and not causing a recession. that should be the goal. if you look at the pieces of the cliff, the payroll tax cut, the temporary holiday, i think there is pretty much a bipartisan consensus that will go away. i consider it inconceivable we will get rid of the new taxes between now and june were one. -- january 1. that places a real premium on avoiding the rest of the tax hikes and spending cuts. i think the sensible thing to do is to say to congress, and your strong this in case -- your strongest debate, please extend tax rates for one year, and would you get to the sequester, the $109 billion across-the- board spending cuts for defense and non-
the line of being corruption. as stevens said in his defense, it is interesting -- when i talk about corporations, i think about international oil bodies. when the majority talks about corporations, they are talking about companies that just happens to be inc.. that goes to michael's question about how do you write an law? >> i was earlier accused of being the hopeful aspirational voice, and this is really quite refreshing. i guess what are no interested in -- how hard is it to draw a bright minds? it is modeled. the -- it is muddled. how in some senses is speech and in some senses not. and i would argue, what exactly is the difference when i go in the ballot box and i go purely on my own economic interests. i do not want my taxes to be higher and i want -- i think this guy will make them lower. how is that different than i do not want the taxes on the corporation to be higher. it seems like trying to write these incredibly complex rules that people will just work around. maybe you can say -- what is the case, what is the vision? >> let's take a slightly different example. the differ
, they will cut about a trillion dollars of the military. the secretary of defense said those cuts would be devastating to america. to the military, the national security. i will not make those cuts. i will not cut our military. i will keep its second to none in the world. [cheers and applause] and when it came to jobs, both last night with president biden and in my debate with president obama, they did not have a plan for creating jobs for middle income americans. they say they care about middle income americans, and believe they do, but they don't want to do. what to do.w they say we will have another stimulus. how did the last one work out? and then it will hire more government workers. there is nothing wrong with government workers, but that will knock the economy going. and then they have plans to make investments, they say. a friend of mine said that they don't want to pick winners and losers, they just pick losers. and then they want to raise taxes. i don't think anyone believes raising taxes creates more jobs. whatjust don't understand it takes to get this economy going, and we h
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9